Posts in "Politics"

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes.

— Heinlein, Starship Troopers

We had a saying in the Corps: "complacency kills." I find that to be valid not just while deployed, but here at home too. Complacency has allowed the state to swell from the Jeffersonian tradition of limited government to the leviathan it is today. It may be tempting to blame it all on the usual suspects — the great centralizers like Hamilton, Marshall, Clay, Lincoln, and FDR — but we must remember government is only allowed the power people give it.

The federal government has gone far beyond protecting its original charge of protecting "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." It has made itself the sole arbiter of the Constitution and as such, its judgement, and not the chains of the Constitution, becomes the limit of its power.

I am not calling for any patriots to shed their blood (or anyone else's for that matter), as Heinlein mentioned (a play on Thomas Jefferson's own words), but I do ask that the patriot shed the the comforts of complacency and bind the federal leviathan by the chains of the Constitution, as was intended.

Imagine that you’re reading an 80‘s spy thriller which has all of the necessary components to make it interesting — politics, secrets, espionage, and a man on the run through several countries. There isn’t a love scene, but for all of its action, you can get over that. If only you could see it in the movies!

There’s just one problem: Instead of working for a Western country to foil a Soviet plot, the main character has leaked classified US government information revealing massive abuses of citizens' privacy as he flees first to China and then to Russia while receiving support from Cuba.

If that sounds backwards, it kind of is — but it's also the real life story of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden.

As might be expected, the Snowden saga is accruing extensive, unpleasant attention to the Obama Administration on the international level. As President Obama travels around the world to get away from the scandals that bogged him down in Washington, he is being greeted by a not-too-happy crowd.

In Berlin, while delivering a poetic speech to a crowd of 4,500 people, protesters gathered to denounce the president, NSA spying, and the hunt for Snowden. In Senegal, he was greeted with similar controversy, although protesters were more motivated on the gay marriage issue. Finally, just yesterday, protesters in South Africa prevented the president from meeting with Nelson Mandela, who is hospitalized in critical condition, saying that they were "disappointed" in the president.

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal." — F.A. Hayek

We've seen much news recently surrounding the voices of equality. I've even reacted to the Supreme Court decisions with a statement here in Mississippi on the DOMA and Prop8: "These decisions allow for equal treatment under the law." I would go on to highlight the ideals of freedom and liberty, implying the removal of government in marriage decisions. But notice the choice of words, "will allow for" — not "will guarantee."

A great resource for liberty-minded individuals to “educate thyself” is Learn Liberty. The organization recently put out a brief video (above) by Professor James R. Otteson at Yeshiva University on understanding the balance between liberty and equality.

You’ve probably heard these claims; even Speaker of the House John Boehner agreed with the president this past March, but it’s just not true. Let’s take a look at our economic prospects for the next ten years.

Right now, public debt is almost 90% higher than it was at the start of the financial crisis in 2008, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that it will grow to 76.2% of GDP by next year. To put this in perspective, at the end of 2007, the federal debt was just 36% of GDP.

The bad news is, it could get even worse. If Congress reverses the spending cuts forced through sequestration, the debt could climb to 83% of GDP.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, none of this includes our massive entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Tack that on, and we are at 106% of GDP!

So why doesn’t the administration see this as an issue? According to de Rugy, “the most common argument is that interest rates are very low and as such it really doesn’t cost that much money to finance government spending through borrowing.”

As I ate lunch with some co-workers, most whom I have seen everyday for over a year, I overheard some typical left vs. right argument on the news behind me.

I ignored it, as I usually do at work — not seeking to make waves with my seemingly apolitical lunch mates. But then, from my left came a 5 minute rant about Syria, Benghazi, and Quantitative Easing...followed by awkward silence. It was awkward, that is, until from my right came a statement of approval. From there, the floodgates were open as everyone weighed in on their disgust with government overreach.

My point? It's not the first person to start something that makes it acceptable and popular. It is the crucial early followers, who demonstrate that what is being said or done is not only acceptable but exciting. So, when you feel compelled to do something about government overreach, join a movement (like YAL!). Find that fledgling local activist group or assist the local politician who is fighting for limited government.

The fight against unlimited government has some charismatic leaders; now it needs some outgoing and hardworking followers to spread the movement from Main Street to state capitols to DC.

My grandmother lives in New Hampshire, and growing up I always enjoyed seeing the "Live Free or Die" slogan on her license plate when she'd come to visit. Sadly, the City of Laconia will begin to detract from New Hampshire's bold heritage of liberty when it implements mandatory recycling in July.

In order to have their trash picked up, residents will need to include separated recyclables at the curb, or obtain a sticker (what a shock!) that certifies the household has chosen to visit a remote site to drop off their recyclables.

Some advocates of the program have claimed it will reduce the costs borne by the city. They also insist, of course, that the program is meant to help "save the planet." It's good to be responsible with our waste, of course, but the goal of "saving the planet" is a large enough task with a long enough tail that it guarantees these self-appointed overseers a perpetual blank check. After all, at what point would it become logically possible to permanently declare the planet "safe?"

What this flurry of tickets and permits and stickers ultimately constitutes is this: a minority of radical activists seeks to regulate the private lives of everyone in the city, even down to the manner in which they toss out their trash. Nothing escapes the reach of these activists, joined with their allies in government.

Fortunately, my grandmother doesn't live in Laconia, but who knows where the madness will spread next? Hopefully, that city will free itself from the rule of these green busybodies and rejoin the sane and rational portion of New Hampshire.

Lincoln Steffens was an early Twentieth Century reporter and journalist who, among other things, was an unapologetic advocate of the Soviet Union and the world-wide revolution towards an era of collectivism. Upon his return from a journalistic visit to the USSR in 1919, Steffens famously wrote: “I have seen the future, and it works.”

He was speaking of the collectivist efforts toward socialized medicine, public works, and labor reforms. To say that the American (and European) media during that era was not swept by the utopian visions of socialist paradise would be a lie. Of course, some members of the media and “educrats” throughout society still love these things, but, since the atrocities of “Red Russia” and its fall in the 80’s, they would have to be more careful about how they pushed a socialist agenda.

Steffens saw “the future” and loved every bit of it. If socialism is the future, I want no part in it. For I too have seen it, experienced it firsthand. In fact, I just got back from London, where my sick wife was subject to the full wrath of a collectivist medical system, against both her will and mine. For those who have been through our increasingly bureaucratic medical system and are already disgusted by its development, I must make myself plain: “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

Because she was not allowed to continue on the plane from London back to the United States, without doctor’s approval, we were forced to stay in London for the night. She needed rest. More than anything, she needed a good night’s sleep if she was to continue on the long flight home. But rest was not to come. No, rather, we took a taxi to the “better of the two hospitals nearby” so that we could “pick-up” a note from the doctor.

And we thus entered one of the most painstaking and frustrating experiences of our life: State-sponsored medical services.

Is this just another bad science fiction movie? No, it's a snapshot of modern America — a snapshot that Edward Snowden, who recently exposed the N.S.A.'s medieval and constitutionally abhorrent practices, knows all too well.

At 29, he faces political destruction at the hands of the very goons and thugs whose barbarism he just revealed. He is being called a traitor, despite his love of country. And the country is largely silent. Is this not evidence of an already-entrenched evil?

When the American colonists rebelled against King George III, they did so to escape tyranny and injustice. But the conditions present at that time were utopian in comparison to what has been substituted for America in the modern era.

Much to the chagrin of many people with tact, politicians have an uncomfortable tendency to politicize national tragedies and celebrations. The Sandy Hook school shooting became a fight for gun control. The Oklahoma tornado led to discussions on climate change. But the newest politicization of a national event by Nancy Pelosi is quite honestly one of the most uncomfortable things I have ever heard.

In her weekly press conference the week before Independence Day, Representative Pelosi welcomed in the upcoming Fourth of July holiday by saying, “Next week, when we celebrate Independence Day we’ll also be observing health independence…This week marks one year since the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. It captures the spirit of our founders.”

I was more than a little unsure precisely how forcing Americans to buy into a government-controlled health care system was in any way reminiscent of the spirit of our founders. Ms. Pelosi clarified this statement by quoting the Declaration of Independence: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Affordable Care Act offers just that: a healthier life, and liberty to pursue a person’s happiness.”

On December 14, 2012, Adam Peter Lanza using a semi-automatic rifle opened fire on student and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. It was a tragedy by any measure and it took most of the nation by surprise. The result of this shock has been a rash of gun and ammunition laws that have all but made owning a firearm useless.

State Senators Steinberg, Hancock, De Leon, Jackson, Block, Wolk, and Yee have also introduced a slew of anti-gun measures that restrict firearm ownership beyond any reason. Their list of legislation includes SB374, SB47,SB396, SB53, SB567, SB683, and SB755.

These measures would close the so-called bullet button loophole, limit the legal ammunition capacity to a 10-round fixed magazine, require background checks to buy ammunition, require a firearm safety class, and even classify certain shotguns as "assault weapons." In essence, the Democrats in the California legislature are working on destroying the Second Amendment of the Constitution in that state, and they are doing a damned good job.